On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 06:33:59 -0700 Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
> I don't think there is any way to solve this problem as stated without > taking a step toward metaprogramming: making decisions at compile time. Excuse me, how and where below stated artificial "contract adaptors" are NOT "making decisions at compile time."? > contract adaptors in the future: a mechanism that says "if the type argument > does not implement contract C1, but does implement contract C2, then use > this code to implement the requirements of C1 in terms of C2." > You need to have a way to say "compile this code under certain > conditions based on the type argument, otherwise compile this code." What allows for concise Min implementation I gave in this thread earlier. > That is, the compiler is directed, at compile time, as to which code > should be compiled. That is, the code user is directed, at reading time, as to which code will compile for given type argument. Easy to see, easy to understand. > That is metaprogramming. That is readability. > I don't think this is a direction that Go should take. Personally I think that it is the direction of doom. Ie. having an artificial contract that is incomprehensible to the casual reader. To someone who do not care how clever and knowledgeable contract's author was but cares much about "what this piece of code might do". > This sort of automatically applied adaptor code seems to me to be less > potentially confusing than metaprogramming. Maybe. I'm not at all sure. "Sort of automatically applied adaptor code" is confusing ** right now**. By the very "" cited description. > Ian > TC, https://github.com/ohir/gonerics -- Wojciech S. Czarnecki << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
